Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Changing A Food System, One Seed At A Time: Part 2
From Farms to Factory Farms...The system La Semilla is tackling has changed dramatically since the 1960s.
Changing A Food System, One Seed At A Time
Transforming a Sense of Possibility Into Systemic Change
It takes a certain kind of person—or, in this case, group of friends—to look at fourteen acres of dry, dusty desert in one of the poorest regions in the country and envision a way for a community to take the food system into its own hands. Meet the three founders of La Semilla Food Center in Anthony, New Mexico, a small rural community near the Mexican border.
It takes a certain kind of person—or, in this case, group of friends—to look at fourteen acres of dry, dusty desert in one of the poorest regions in the country and envision a way for a community to take the food system into its own hands. Meet the three founders of La Semilla Food Center in Anthony, New Mexico, a small rural community near the Mexican border.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
USDA Announces Grants to Support Schools in Meeting New School Meal Requirements
Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan announced new grants to support schools as they strive to serve healthy food, provide nutrition education, and create an environment focused on healthy eating and physical activity.
"When we serve our children healthy school meals, we're making a critical investment in their academic performance, their physical health, and their future," said Merrigan. "Today's announcement reflects our ongoing commitment to provide States with the tools they need to build a healthy school environment. Providing nutrition education resources, extending training and technical assistance to foodservice professionals, and building community support helps ensure that every child in America has a chance to succeed."
Funded in support of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, the Team Nutrition training grants will assist schools in meeting the new school meal requirements, encourage HealthierUS School Challenge participation, support students' nutritious choices by structuring the cafeteria environment in a way that encourages the selection of healthy foods, and promote healthier environments to align with the Local Wellness Policy requirements established in the Act.
USDA is awarding approximately $5.2 million in 18 States and one territory including:
Alaska, $242,847.00 (competitive)
Arizona, $319,772.00 (competitive)
Florida, $311,500.00 (competitive)
Guam, $330,344.00 (competitive)
Hawaii, $233,016.00 (competitive)
Idaho, $245,120.00 (competitive)
Illinois, $50,000.00 (non-competitive)
Iowa, $348,335.00 (competitive)
Kansas, $349,715.00 (competitive)
Michigan, $333,420.00 (competitive)
Missouri, $342,609.00 (competitive)
Montana, $349,924.00 (competitive)
New Jersey, $324,151.00 (competitive)
North Dakota, $247,580.00 (competitive)
Ohio, $345,849.00 (competitive)
Utah, $41,540.00 (non-competitive)
Washington, $222,508.00 (competitive)
Washington, $46,772.00 (non-competitive)
West Virginia, $346,515.00 (competitive)
Wisconsin, $203,056.00 (competitive)
Funding will be made available for the period of September 30, 2012 through September 30, 2014, to assist State agencies in achieving the Team Nutrition goals. States must apply Team Nutrition's three behavior-focused strategies:
Provide training and technical assistance to child nutrition food service professionals to enable them to prepare and serve nutritious meals that appeal to children. Provide fun and interactive nutrition education for children, teachers, parents, and other caregivers. Build school and community support for creating healthy school environments that are conducive to healthy eating and physical activity.
This school year, 32 million students across the country are benefiting from new meal standards for the National School Lunch Program for the first time in more than fifteen years. The healthier school meals are a key component of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by the First Lady as part of her Let's Move! campaign and signed into law by President Obama. To learn about the new meal standards, go to www.fns.usda.gov/healthierschoolday.
USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees the administration of 15 nutrition assistance programs, including school meals programs, that touch the lives of one in four Americans over the course of a year. These programs work together to form a national safety net against hunger. Visit www.fns.usda.gov for information about FNS and nutrition assistance programs.
"When we serve our children healthy school meals, we're making a critical investment in their academic performance, their physical health, and their future," said Merrigan. "Today's announcement reflects our ongoing commitment to provide States with the tools they need to build a healthy school environment. Providing nutrition education resources, extending training and technical assistance to foodservice professionals, and building community support helps ensure that every child in America has a chance to succeed."
Funded in support of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, the Team Nutrition training grants will assist schools in meeting the new school meal requirements, encourage HealthierUS School Challenge participation, support students' nutritious choices by structuring the cafeteria environment in a way that encourages the selection of healthy foods, and promote healthier environments to align with the Local Wellness Policy requirements established in the Act.
USDA is awarding approximately $5.2 million in 18 States and one territory including:
Alaska, $242,847.00 (competitive)
Arizona, $319,772.00 (competitive)
Florida, $311,500.00 (competitive)
Guam, $330,344.00 (competitive)
Hawaii, $233,016.00 (competitive)
Idaho, $245,120.00 (competitive)
Illinois, $50,000.00 (non-competitive)
Iowa, $348,335.00 (competitive)
Kansas, $349,715.00 (competitive)
Michigan, $333,420.00 (competitive)
Missouri, $342,609.00 (competitive)
Montana, $349,924.00 (competitive)
New Jersey, $324,151.00 (competitive)
North Dakota, $247,580.00 (competitive)
Ohio, $345,849.00 (competitive)
Utah, $41,540.00 (non-competitive)
Washington, $222,508.00 (competitive)
Washington, $46,772.00 (non-competitive)
West Virginia, $346,515.00 (competitive)
Wisconsin, $203,056.00 (competitive)
Funding will be made available for the period of September 30, 2012 through September 30, 2014, to assist State agencies in achieving the Team Nutrition goals. States must apply Team Nutrition's three behavior-focused strategies:
Provide training and technical assistance to child nutrition food service professionals to enable them to prepare and serve nutritious meals that appeal to children. Provide fun and interactive nutrition education for children, teachers, parents, and other caregivers. Build school and community support for creating healthy school environments that are conducive to healthy eating and physical activity.
This school year, 32 million students across the country are benefiting from new meal standards for the National School Lunch Program for the first time in more than fifteen years. The healthier school meals are a key component of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by the First Lady as part of her Let's Move! campaign and signed into law by President Obama. To learn about the new meal standards, go to www.fns.usda.gov/healthierschoolday.
USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees the administration of 15 nutrition assistance programs, including school meals programs, that touch the lives of one in four Americans over the course of a year. These programs work together to form a national safety net against hunger. Visit www.fns.usda.gov for information about FNS and nutrition assistance programs.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Hospital Payment Assistance Program
The “Hospital Payment Assistance Program” (SB12-134), which becomes law August 8, 2012, will help working families who cannot afford insurance to responsibly pay their hospital bills.
Uninsured patients, who do not have the bargaining power of large insurance companies or public programs, are charged much higher prices for hospital care than those with insurance. Public programs and private insurers negotiate lower prices with hospitals. Uninsured patients are the only group that pays the full listed prices for hospital care. These higher prices are a significant hardship for working families that already struggle to afford medical care, forcing many patients to go into debt, or even declare bankruptcy.
The “Hospital Payment Assistance Program” addresses this issue by creating increased transparency standards regarding hospital discount policies, regulating debt collection practices, and limiting the price that can be charged to uninsured patients below 250% of the Federal Poverty Level. These measures gives working families important information about hospital discount policies and charity care and a chance to responsibly pay their medical bills.
The Bill
Uninsured patients, who do not have the bargaining power of large insurance companies or public programs, are charged much higher prices for hospital care than those with insurance. Public programs and private insurers negotiate lower prices with hospitals. Uninsured patients are the only group that pays the full listed prices for hospital care. These higher prices are a significant hardship for working families that already struggle to afford medical care, forcing many patients to go into debt, or even declare bankruptcy.
The “Hospital Payment Assistance Program” addresses this issue by creating increased transparency standards regarding hospital discount policies, regulating debt collection practices, and limiting the price that can be charged to uninsured patients below 250% of the Federal Poverty Level. These measures gives working families important information about hospital discount policies and charity care and a chance to responsibly pay their medical bills.
The Bill
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Wealth Doesn't Trickle Down – It Just Floods Offshore
Wealth Doesn't Trickle Down – It Just Floods Offshore, Research Reveals
21st July 2012 - Heather Stewart, The Guardian
The world's super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad – a sum larger than the entire American economy.
James Henry, a former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, has conducted groundbreaking new research for the Tax Justice Network campaign group – sifting through data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and private sector analysts to construct an alarming picture that shows capital flooding out of countries across the world and disappearing into the cracks in the financial system.
Comedian Jimmy Carr became the public face of tax-dodging in the UK earlier this year when it emerged that he had made use of a Cayman Islands-based trust to slash his income tax bill.
But the kind of scheme Carr took part in is the tip of the iceberg, according to Henry's report, entitled The Price of Offshore Revisited. Despite the professed determination of the G20 group of leading economies to tackle tax secrecy, investors in scores of countries – including the US and the UK – are still able to hide some or all of their assets from the taxman.
"This offshore economy is large enough to have a major impact on estimates of inequality of wealth and income; on estimates of national income and debt ratios; and – most importantly – to have very significant negative impacts on the domestic tax bases of 'source' countries," Henry says.
Using the BIS's measure of "offshore deposits" – cash held outside the depositor's home country – and scaling it up according to the proportion of their portfolio large investors usually hold in cash, he estimates that between $21tn (£13tn) and $32tn (£20tn) in financial assets has been hidden from the world's tax authorities.
"These estimates reveal a staggering failure," says John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network. "Inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people.
"This new data shows the exact opposite has happened: for three decades extraordinary wealth has been cascading into the offshore accounts of a tiny number of super-rich."
In total, 10 million individuals around the world hold assets offshore, according to Henry's analysis; but almost half of the minimum estimate of $21tn – $9.8tn – is owned by just 92,000 people. And that does not include the non-financial assets – art, yachts, mansions in Kensington – that many of the world's movers and shakers like to use as homes for their immense riches.
"If we could figure out how to tax all this offshore wealth without killing the proverbial golden goose, or at least entice its owners to reinvest it back home, this sector of the global underground is easily large enough to make a significant contribution to tax justice, investment and paying the costs of global problems like climate change," Henry says.
He corroborates his findings by using national accounts to assemble estimates of the cumulative capital flight from more than 130 low- to middle-income countries over almost 40 years, and the returns their wealthy owners are likely to have made from them.
In many cases, , the total worth of these assets far exceeds the value of the overseas debts of the countries they came from.
The struggles of the authorities in Egypt to recover the vast sums hidden abroad by Hosni Mubarak, his family and other cronies during his many years in power have provided a striking recent example of the fact that kleptocratic rulers can use their time to amass immense fortunes while many of their citizens are trapped in poverty.
The world's poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have fought long and hard in recent years to receive debt forgiveness from the international community; but this research suggests that in many cases, if they had been able to draw their richest citizens into the tax net, they could have avoided being dragged into indebtedness in the first place. Oil-rich Nigeria has seen more than $300bn spirited away since 1970, for example, while Ivory Coast has lost $141bn.
Assuming that super-rich investors earn a relatively modest 3% a year on their $21tn, taxing that vast wall of money at 30% would generate a very useful $189bn a year – more than rich economies spend on aid to the rest of the world.
The sheer scale of the hidden assets held by the super-rich also suggests that standard measures of inequality, which tend to rely on surveys of household income or wealth in individual countries, radically underestimate the true gap between rich and poor.
Milorad Kovacevic, chief statistician of the UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, says both the very wealthy and the very poor tend to be excluded from mainstream calculations of inequality.
"People that are in charge of measuring inequality based on survey data know that the both ends of the distribution are underrepresented – or, even better, misrepresented," he says.
"There is rarely a household from the top 1% earners that participates in the survey. On the other side, the poor people either don't have addresses to be selected into the sample, or when selected they misquote their earnings – usually biasing them upwards."
Inequality is widely seen as having increased sharply in many developed countries over the past decade or more – as described in a recent paper from the IMF, which showed marked increases in the so-called Gini coefficient, which economists use to measure how evenly income is shared across societies.
Globalisation has exposed low-skilled workers to competition from cheap economies such as China, while the surging profitability of the financial services industry – and the spread of the big bonus culture before the credit crunch – led to what economists have called a "racing away" at the top of the income scale.
However, Henry's research suggests that this acknowledged jump in inequality is a dramatic underestimate. Stewart Lansley, author of the recent book The Cost of Inequality, says: "There is absolutely no doubt at all that the statistics on income and wealth at the top understate the problem."
The surveys that are used to compile the Gini coefficient "simply don't touch the super-rich," he says. "You don't pick up the multimillionaires and billionaires, and even if you do, you can't pick it up properly."
In fact, some experts believe the amount of assets being held offshore is so large that accounting for it fully would radically alter the balance of financial power between countries. The French economist Thomas Piketty, an expert on inequality who helps compile the World Top Incomes Database, says research by his colleagues has shown that "the wealth held in tax havens is probably sufficiently substantial to turn Europe into a very large net creditor with respect to the rest of the world."
In other words, even a solution to the eurozone's seemingly endless sovereign debt crisis might be within reach – if only Europe's governments could get a grip on the wallets of their own wealthiest citizens.
Original source....
21st July 2012 - Heather Stewart, The Guardian
The world's super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad – a sum larger than the entire American economy.
James Henry, a former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, has conducted groundbreaking new research for the Tax Justice Network campaign group – sifting through data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and private sector analysts to construct an alarming picture that shows capital flooding out of countries across the world and disappearing into the cracks in the financial system.
Comedian Jimmy Carr became the public face of tax-dodging in the UK earlier this year when it emerged that he had made use of a Cayman Islands-based trust to slash his income tax bill.
But the kind of scheme Carr took part in is the tip of the iceberg, according to Henry's report, entitled The Price of Offshore Revisited. Despite the professed determination of the G20 group of leading economies to tackle tax secrecy, investors in scores of countries – including the US and the UK – are still able to hide some or all of their assets from the taxman.
"This offshore economy is large enough to have a major impact on estimates of inequality of wealth and income; on estimates of national income and debt ratios; and – most importantly – to have very significant negative impacts on the domestic tax bases of 'source' countries," Henry says.
Using the BIS's measure of "offshore deposits" – cash held outside the depositor's home country – and scaling it up according to the proportion of their portfolio large investors usually hold in cash, he estimates that between $21tn (£13tn) and $32tn (£20tn) in financial assets has been hidden from the world's tax authorities.
"These estimates reveal a staggering failure," says John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network. "Inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people.
"This new data shows the exact opposite has happened: for three decades extraordinary wealth has been cascading into the offshore accounts of a tiny number of super-rich."
In total, 10 million individuals around the world hold assets offshore, according to Henry's analysis; but almost half of the minimum estimate of $21tn – $9.8tn – is owned by just 92,000 people. And that does not include the non-financial assets – art, yachts, mansions in Kensington – that many of the world's movers and shakers like to use as homes for their immense riches.
"If we could figure out how to tax all this offshore wealth without killing the proverbial golden goose, or at least entice its owners to reinvest it back home, this sector of the global underground is easily large enough to make a significant contribution to tax justice, investment and paying the costs of global problems like climate change," Henry says.
He corroborates his findings by using national accounts to assemble estimates of the cumulative capital flight from more than 130 low- to middle-income countries over almost 40 years, and the returns their wealthy owners are likely to have made from them.
In many cases, , the total worth of these assets far exceeds the value of the overseas debts of the countries they came from.
The struggles of the authorities in Egypt to recover the vast sums hidden abroad by Hosni Mubarak, his family and other cronies during his many years in power have provided a striking recent example of the fact that kleptocratic rulers can use their time to amass immense fortunes while many of their citizens are trapped in poverty.
The world's poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have fought long and hard in recent years to receive debt forgiveness from the international community; but this research suggests that in many cases, if they had been able to draw their richest citizens into the tax net, they could have avoided being dragged into indebtedness in the first place. Oil-rich Nigeria has seen more than $300bn spirited away since 1970, for example, while Ivory Coast has lost $141bn.
Assuming that super-rich investors earn a relatively modest 3% a year on their $21tn, taxing that vast wall of money at 30% would generate a very useful $189bn a year – more than rich economies spend on aid to the rest of the world.
The sheer scale of the hidden assets held by the super-rich also suggests that standard measures of inequality, which tend to rely on surveys of household income or wealth in individual countries, radically underestimate the true gap between rich and poor.
Milorad Kovacevic, chief statistician of the UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, says both the very wealthy and the very poor tend to be excluded from mainstream calculations of inequality.
"People that are in charge of measuring inequality based on survey data know that the both ends of the distribution are underrepresented – or, even better, misrepresented," he says.
"There is rarely a household from the top 1% earners that participates in the survey. On the other side, the poor people either don't have addresses to be selected into the sample, or when selected they misquote their earnings – usually biasing them upwards."
Inequality is widely seen as having increased sharply in many developed countries over the past decade or more – as described in a recent paper from the IMF, which showed marked increases in the so-called Gini coefficient, which economists use to measure how evenly income is shared across societies.
Globalisation has exposed low-skilled workers to competition from cheap economies such as China, while the surging profitability of the financial services industry – and the spread of the big bonus culture before the credit crunch – led to what economists have called a "racing away" at the top of the income scale.
However, Henry's research suggests that this acknowledged jump in inequality is a dramatic underestimate. Stewart Lansley, author of the recent book The Cost of Inequality, says: "There is absolutely no doubt at all that the statistics on income and wealth at the top understate the problem."
The surveys that are used to compile the Gini coefficient "simply don't touch the super-rich," he says. "You don't pick up the multimillionaires and billionaires, and even if you do, you can't pick it up properly."
In fact, some experts believe the amount of assets being held offshore is so large that accounting for it fully would radically alter the balance of financial power between countries. The French economist Thomas Piketty, an expert on inequality who helps compile the World Top Incomes Database, says research by his colleagues has shown that "the wealth held in tax havens is probably sufficiently substantial to turn Europe into a very large net creditor with respect to the rest of the world."
In other words, even a solution to the eurozone's seemingly endless sovereign debt crisis might be within reach – if only Europe's governments could get a grip on the wallets of their own wealthiest citizens.
Original source....
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Healthier School Year
Agriculture Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Kevin Concannon today announced that America's students will see healthier and more nutritious foods in the cafeteria as they return to school this year. The new nutrition standards for school meals, implemented as a result of the historic Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, will help to combat child hunger and obesity and improve the health and nutrition of the nation's children.
"Improving the nutrition of school meals is an important investment in the future of America's children," said Concannon. "We know that healthy food plays a vital role in strengthening a child's body and mind and the healthier school meals will help to ensure our children can learn, grow, and reach their full potential."
Starting this school year, schools will phase in the nutrition standards over a three-year period. Schools will focus on changes in the lunches in the first year, with most changes in breakfast to take place in future years. The new meal standards:
Watch a special back to school welcome video from First Lady Michelle Obama.
USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees the administration of 15 nutrition assistance programs, including school meals programs, that touch the lives of one in four Americans over the course of a year. These programs work in concert to form a national safety net against hunger. Visit www.fns.usda.gov for information about FNS and nutrition assistance programs. To learn about the meal standards, go to www.fns.usda.gov/healthierschoolday.
"Improving the nutrition of school meals is an important investment in the future of America's children," said Concannon. "We know that healthy food plays a vital role in strengthening a child's body and mind and the healthier school meals will help to ensure our children can learn, grow, and reach their full potential."
Starting this school year, schools will phase in the nutrition standards over a three-year period. Schools will focus on changes in the lunches in the first year, with most changes in breakfast to take place in future years. The new meal standards:
- Ensure students are offered both fruits and vegetables every day of the week;
- Substantially increase offerings of whole grain-rich foods and low-fat milk or fat-free milk varieties;
- Limit calories based on the age of children being served to ensure proper portion size; and
- Focus on reducing the amounts of saturated fat, trans fats and sodium.
Watch a special back to school welcome video from First Lady Michelle Obama.
USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees the administration of 15 nutrition assistance programs, including school meals programs, that touch the lives of one in four Americans over the course of a year. These programs work in concert to form a national safety net against hunger. Visit www.fns.usda.gov for information about FNS and nutrition assistance programs. To learn about the meal standards, go to www.fns.usda.gov/healthierschoolday.
Farm Exports
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released the following statement today on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's export forecast for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, which shows a level of U.S. agricultural exports unmatched in our nation's history.
"Today's export forecast marks indication of an historic achievement for America's farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses. Even with tough odds due to extreme weather, U.S. agriculture is now poised for three consecutive years of record exports, smashing all previous records and putting America's agricultural sector on pace to achieve President Obama's goal under the National Export Initiative of doubling exports by the end of 2014. These exports will support more than 1 million jobs in communities across the country.
"Exports of U.S. food and agricultural products are expected to reach $143.5 billion in fiscal 2013, well above the record set in 2011. At the same time, the forecast for fiscal 2012 is revised upward to a near-record $136.5 billion. Since 2009, U.S. agricultural exports have made gains of 50 percent.
"When we look beyond the remarkable results, we see two strong storylines. The first is a story of American innovation and resiliency. U.S. agriculture as a whole is resilient thanks to producers' ability to innovate, reduce their debt and capitalize on expanding market opportunities. The second is a President who has laid the groundwork for success in rural America. Since 2009, under the President's National Export Initiative, the Obama Administration has renegotiated and implemented important trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia, expanded trade in organics with the European Union, removed hundreds of unfair barriers to trade for American companies, and provided businesses the credit, knowledge and connections they need to reach new markets.
"At the same time, the Obama Administration has invested in rural America's future with support for renewable energy and bio-based products that provide rural communities with a sure path toward a sustainable period of growth and innovation.
"Thanks to this successful partnership, U.S. agriculture is stronger today than at any time in our nation's history, supporting and creating good American jobs for millions.
"Congress needs to help ensure that this success continues by passing a comprehensive, multi-year Food, Farm and Jobs Bill that provides greater certainty for farmers and ranchers."
"Today's export forecast marks indication of an historic achievement for America's farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses. Even with tough odds due to extreme weather, U.S. agriculture is now poised for three consecutive years of record exports, smashing all previous records and putting America's agricultural sector on pace to achieve President Obama's goal under the National Export Initiative of doubling exports by the end of 2014. These exports will support more than 1 million jobs in communities across the country.
"Exports of U.S. food and agricultural products are expected to reach $143.5 billion in fiscal 2013, well above the record set in 2011. At the same time, the forecast for fiscal 2012 is revised upward to a near-record $136.5 billion. Since 2009, U.S. agricultural exports have made gains of 50 percent.
"When we look beyond the remarkable results, we see two strong storylines. The first is a story of American innovation and resiliency. U.S. agriculture as a whole is resilient thanks to producers' ability to innovate, reduce their debt and capitalize on expanding market opportunities. The second is a President who has laid the groundwork for success in rural America. Since 2009, under the President's National Export Initiative, the Obama Administration has renegotiated and implemented important trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia, expanded trade in organics with the European Union, removed hundreds of unfair barriers to trade for American companies, and provided businesses the credit, knowledge and connections they need to reach new markets.
"At the same time, the Obama Administration has invested in rural America's future with support for renewable energy and bio-based products that provide rural communities with a sure path toward a sustainable period of growth and innovation.
"Thanks to this successful partnership, U.S. agriculture is stronger today than at any time in our nation's history, supporting and creating good American jobs for millions.
"Congress needs to help ensure that this success continues by passing a comprehensive, multi-year Food, Farm and Jobs Bill that provides greater certainty for farmers and ranchers."
Sunday, July 29, 2012
2012 University of Denver Graduate of M.A.S. Degree
 |
| 2012 M.A.S. Environmental Policy and Management |
 |
| 2012 M.A.S. Environmental Policy and Management - Back of ceremonial gown |
Hydrogen - King element in the Universe
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and is virtually inexhaustible. Hydrogen powers the sun that has given the earth its heat energy since the beginning of time.
Hydrogen energy use with the abundance of hydrogen and the ability to produce hydrogen fuel cells for energy consumption:
What would it require for Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles to be an accepted mode of transportation in the US?
One major issue that the U.S. is facing is changing our existing transportation infrastructure to hydrogen; however, that takes funding. Who will pay for it?
It is a matter of cost, hydrogen vs oil, cost of the vehicle itself, and whether the state will provide hydrogen services. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have been accepted mode of transportation in the U.S. but only in a few states such as California (Consumer Energy Center 2012). From 2000-2005, 95 light-duty fuel cell vehicles were placed in California and traveled more than 220,000 miles on California's roads and highways. These cars are still being tested and are available to a few fleets and consumers. Fuel cell buses are being tested at Sun Line Transit in Thousand Palms, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit), and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (Santa Clara VTA). The buses began operation in 2005. Buses are being tested at Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the University of California at Davis.
Several companies as AT&T, FedEx, PepsiCO, UPS, and Verizon are teaming up with the Department of Energy (DOE) through the National Clean Fleets Partnership to convert their vehicles from conventional gasoline over to hydrogen (U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2012). Several global automakers are doing their part to assist with the transportation industry by converting vehicles to fuel cell vehicles (FCV) such as Daimler, Ford, GM/Opel, Honda, Hyundai/KIA, Renault/Nissan and Toyota, with a number of FCVs being commercialized by 2015. However, U.S. automakers haven't caught up with hydrogen technology and remains behind countries like Japan and Germany for fuel cell development. The reason for the U.S. antiquated fuel system is due to lack of fueling stations across the country. A mature fleet will require 11,000 stations coast to coast at a cost of $20 billion to $25 billion, according to General Motors. The U.S. is standing up against Washington and oil companies that rival hydrogen (Levine 2012).
Fortunately, the oil companies may have to cooperate due to the driving force behind large automobile companies that are producing FCVs especially in the transit bus system. The sales for fuel cell transit buses will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 31.7% by 2015. Fuel cell light vehicles will be commercially launched in 2014 in most regions of the world, and their sales will reach almost 670,000 vehicles per year by 2020. Pike Research forecasts that Western Europe will be the leading region for FCV sales with a 37% share of the world market, followed closely by Asia Pacific with 36%. FCV sales in North America will represent approximately 25% of global sales during the period from 2014 to 2020. The cleantech market intelligence firm anticipates that FCV revenues will reach $23.9 billion annually by 2020. This means that oil companies may lose out in the long-run over consumer demands and if/when individual states go ahead with hydrogen and leave the federal government behind (Addison 2011).
Addison, John. 2011. Hyundai making 2,000 hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Cleantech. September 13. http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/09/hyundai-making-2000-hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-vehicles.html (accessed July 24, 2012).
Consumer Energy Center. 2012. Fuel cell vehicles. California Energy Commsion. http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/fuelcell/index.html (accessed July 24, 2012).
Levine, Steve. 2012. Giving hydrogen fuel-cells cars another chance. Slate. May 17. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/05/hydrogen_fuel_cell_vehicles_and_the_obama_administration_.2.html (accessed July 24, 2012).
United States (U.S.) Chamber of Commerce. 2012.
National clean fleets partnership announced. http://www.uschamber.com/feed/national-clean-fleets-partnership-announced (accessed July 24, 2012).
Hydrogen energy use with the abundance of hydrogen and the ability to produce hydrogen fuel cells for energy consumption:
What would it require for Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles to be an accepted mode of transportation in the US?
One major issue that the U.S. is facing is changing our existing transportation infrastructure to hydrogen; however, that takes funding. Who will pay for it?
It is a matter of cost, hydrogen vs oil, cost of the vehicle itself, and whether the state will provide hydrogen services. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have been accepted mode of transportation in the U.S. but only in a few states such as California (Consumer Energy Center 2012). From 2000-2005, 95 light-duty fuel cell vehicles were placed in California and traveled more than 220,000 miles on California's roads and highways. These cars are still being tested and are available to a few fleets and consumers. Fuel cell buses are being tested at Sun Line Transit in Thousand Palms, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit), and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (Santa Clara VTA). The buses began operation in 2005. Buses are being tested at Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the University of California at Davis.
Several companies as AT&T, FedEx, PepsiCO, UPS, and Verizon are teaming up with the Department of Energy (DOE) through the National Clean Fleets Partnership to convert their vehicles from conventional gasoline over to hydrogen (U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2012). Several global automakers are doing their part to assist with the transportation industry by converting vehicles to fuel cell vehicles (FCV) such as Daimler, Ford, GM/Opel, Honda, Hyundai/KIA, Renault/Nissan and Toyota, with a number of FCVs being commercialized by 2015. However, U.S. automakers haven't caught up with hydrogen technology and remains behind countries like Japan and Germany for fuel cell development. The reason for the U.S. antiquated fuel system is due to lack of fueling stations across the country. A mature fleet will require 11,000 stations coast to coast at a cost of $20 billion to $25 billion, according to General Motors. The U.S. is standing up against Washington and oil companies that rival hydrogen (Levine 2012).
Fortunately, the oil companies may have to cooperate due to the driving force behind large automobile companies that are producing FCVs especially in the transit bus system. The sales for fuel cell transit buses will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 31.7% by 2015. Fuel cell light vehicles will be commercially launched in 2014 in most regions of the world, and their sales will reach almost 670,000 vehicles per year by 2020. Pike Research forecasts that Western Europe will be the leading region for FCV sales with a 37% share of the world market, followed closely by Asia Pacific with 36%. FCV sales in North America will represent approximately 25% of global sales during the period from 2014 to 2020. The cleantech market intelligence firm anticipates that FCV revenues will reach $23.9 billion annually by 2020. This means that oil companies may lose out in the long-run over consumer demands and if/when individual states go ahead with hydrogen and leave the federal government behind (Addison 2011).
Addison, John. 2011. Hyundai making 2,000 hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Cleantech. September 13. http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/09/hyundai-making-2000-hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-vehicles.html (accessed July 24, 2012).
Consumer Energy Center. 2012. Fuel cell vehicles. California Energy Commsion. http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/fuelcell/index.html (accessed July 24, 2012).
Levine, Steve. 2012. Giving hydrogen fuel-cells cars another chance. Slate. May 17. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/05/hydrogen_fuel_cell_vehicles_and_the_obama_administration_.2.html (accessed July 24, 2012).
United States (U.S.) Chamber of Commerce. 2012.
National clean fleets partnership announced. http://www.uschamber.com/feed/national-clean-fleets-partnership-announced (accessed July 24, 2012).
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Nuclear Energy Around the World
Many countries around the world are pursuing nuclear power. Should the US consider increasing it's percentage of electrical energy generation from nuclear power?
The U.S. should increase it's percentage use of nuclear energy because for decades we have overused and abused oil for own use and heavily contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention created a large global footprint. The U.S. needs to consider future needs and different energy sources instead of focusing on a few past energy sources.
There are 40 reactors now under construction in 11 countries around the world, however, none of them are located in the United States (Miller 2012). There are only two reactors in Western Europe, one in Finland and the other in France, both built by Areva, a French company (Lehr 2010).
The U.S. should increase it's percentage use of nuclear energy because for decades we have overused and abused oil for own use and heavily contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention created a large global footprint. The U.S. needs to consider future needs and different energy sources instead of focusing on a few past energy sources.
There are 40 reactors now under construction in 11 countries around the world, however, none of them are located in the United States (Miller 2012). There are only two reactors in Western Europe, one in Finland and the other in France, both built by Areva, a French company (Lehr 2010).
France gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear, has the cheapest electricity in Europe, and is the second-lowest carbon emissions. France sells $80 billion worth of electricity to the rest of Europe each year. In addition, the country barely felt the recession due to the nuclear power helping to keep their whole economy afloat.
Japan has 55 reactors and gets 35 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy, almost double the 19 percent we get here. The Japanese have two reactors under construction and plans for ten more by 2018.
South Korea gets nearly 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear and is planning another eight reactors by 2015. So far they've bought their reactors from the Japanese but now they have their own Korean Next-Generation Reactor, a 1400-megawatt giant evolved from an American design. They plan to bring two of these online by 2016. Taiwan also gets 18 percent of its electricity from nuclear and is building two new reactors (Lehr 2010).
Countries are finding they can build a reactor, start to finish, in less than four years. That's less time than it is taking to get one American reactor through licensing at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Much of China's $586 billion stimulus package is going toward developing nuclear power to focus on environmental issue (Lehr 2010).
India is embracing thorium; a technology a lot of people think may eventually replace uranium as nuclear fuel. Thorium is twice as abundant as uranium and it doesn't produce the plutonium that everybody worries will be used to make a bomb. There's a lot of enthusiasm for thorium among scientists in this country. But it's India that's going ahead, with six reactors under construction and ten more planned (Lehr 2010).
By the reviewing the above information, the U.S. has a lot to learn from what other countries have accomplished.
The U.S. has spent $300 billion a year importing 2/3rds of its oil from other countries (Robinson and Robinson 2008). That is not sustainable, cost-effective, or independent from relying on other country for its energy source. The U.S. is losing its edge on technology. We used to be the major leader for the telephone, the electric light, the automobile, the assembly line, radio, television and the computer.
The U.S. should double its production of nuclear power by building 100 nuclear reactors in 20 years to insure we have enough cheap, clean, reliable electricity in this country to create good high-quality, high-tech jobs.
Today, nuclear provides 70 percent of our carbon free electricity and the plants operate 90 percent of the time. Wind and solar provide 4 percent of electricity and operate about one third of the time.
The Obama Administration's mentions it will require building 186,000 fifty story turbines, enough to cover an area the size of West Virginia, plus 19,000 miles of new transmission lines to carry electricity from remote to populated areas producing 20 percent of electricity from wind. Hundred new nuclear plants could be built mostly on existing sites.
It will cost roughly the same to build 100 new nuclear plants (which will last 60 to 80 years) as it would to build 186,000 wind turbines (lasting 20 to 25 years).
There will be twice as many "green jobs" created building 100 reactors as there would be building 186,000 wind turbines.
According to the introduction and press release from U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander's website (Lemar Alexander 2009), Americans should fear that while the rest of the world, such as Russia and China, are using nuclear energy the U.S. is ignoring it. This will cause a ripple affect for America's history. We won't be able to compete with countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear power while we're stuck with a bunch of wind and solar farms producing expensive, unreliable energy or, worse yet, rely on dirty energy as oil (Miller 2012).
The Chinese sent nuclear scientists to tour the Idaho National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and visited General Electric and Westinghouse back in the mid 2000s trying to decide which technology to choose for their nuclear program, as the U.S. used to be the leader of technology. The Chinese are in the nuclear business and plan to build over 132 reactors.
By 2007, Toshiba bought Westinghouse, which made Westinghouse a Japanese company. In meantime, the Chinese wanted the design specification for the reactors to do 'reverse engineering' and see how the reactors were made. Japan became the leader in steel strong enough to make reactor vessels, instead of the U.S., while China became the new wave of 'Chinese Technology'. This means by the time the U.S. decides to construct nuclear reactors, we will need to rely on Japan for steel because our steel isn't strong enough and we will need to import. Russia, France, Britain, South Korea and India are all following in China's footprint for building nuclear plants.
Since then General Electric, the only American company left on the field, partnered with Hitachi and sold five reactors to American utilities but fared poorly in the competition for federal loan guarantees. Two other utilities have cancelled their projects.
On the positive side of the U.S., we know how to run, protect, and regulate reactors better than any one else in the world (Lehr 2010).
References:
Lehr, Jay. 2010. U.S. sitting on sidelines of global nuclear renaissance. June 5. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/06/05/us-sitting-sidelines-global-nuclear-renaissance (accessed July 18, 2012).
Lemar Alexander. 2009. Alexander on what the U.S. should really fear about nuclear power. http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a7f5ad06-f0af-4c37-82f4-b394f3caa98e&ContentType_id=778be7e0-0d5a-42b2-9352-09ed63cc4d66&Group_id=80d87631-7c25-4340-a97a-72cccdd8a658&YearDisplay=2009 (accessed July 17, 2012).
Miller, Mark. 2012. Nuclear power as part of our energy surety. http://www.beyondfossilfools.com/nuclear-power-as-part-of-our-energy-surety.html (accessed July 18, 2012).
Robinson, Arthur, and Noah Robinson. 2008. Energy for America: we can achieve energy independence for the 21st century without destroying the environment. There's no need to deindustrialize or sacrifice our standard of living. The New American. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Energy+for+America%3A+we+can+achieve+energy+independence+for+the+21st...-a0173421365 (accessed July 17, 2012).
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Tsunami debris adds to 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch'
The first wave has arrived. And now more and more tsunami debris is washing ashore on West Coast beaches seemingly every day. From large docks, to a motorcycle, to boat buoys, states like Washington and Oregon are seeing most of the debris. But the hunt for larger masses of debris is underway, not on shore but instead deep into the Pacific.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy
Given that there are two sides to every argument with advantages and disadvantages of the continued use of nuclear energy, and given the risks versus the benefits of nuclear power as presented in the lecture and the reading material thus far: Are you concerned with the continued use of nuclear power in our US energy portfolio? Why or Why not?
After reading about nuclear energy I find that having nuclear power has value and should continued to be included in the U.S. energy portfolio.
Today, the U.S. currently has over hundred nuclear power reactors in several states that generate nuclear energy for electricity for homes and businesses; most of these stations are located in the Midwest and along the East Coast, with just four located on the West Coast (earthquakes?). We all read about the catastrophe at Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant back on March 11, 2011 in which the Tohoku earthquake disrupted the plant and the entire plant had to be shutoff. However, like more statisticians would say, what are the risks of that happening to the U.S. or elsewhere in the world so soon afterwards (EIA 2012)?
According to the World Nuclear News (2012) China is not afraid and is installing nuclear reactors as 27 new reactors will be online by 2015. The EIA (2012) mentions that the U.S. was the top nuclear generating country (out of 31), making nearly 800 billion KWh in 2011. This means economic profit for this country so the concept of shutting down is highly unlikely due to political input. Nuclear waste may be hazardous but not if stored and processed accurately; most of the commercial waste is (stored in water pools or dry casks not buried at the site) near the nuclear site. On the positive side of nuclear energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NCR) reported receiving applications to create 27 new reactors, which will provide over 15 gigawatts of nuclear capacity between 2010 and 2035.
The World Nuclear Association (WNA 2012) mentions that the global population is currently at over six billion people and will reach nine billion by 2050; as the population grows, energy supply must also. Fossil fuel is dirty and unsustainable, while nuclear energy is cleaner energy. As alternative and renewable energies are researched, the technology is improved, safety features are enhanced, and operating procedures are documented and regulated making nuclear energy safer to use.
References:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012. What is the status of the U.S. nuclear industry? http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/nuclear_industry.cfm (accessed June 13, 2012).
World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2012. The central challenge: decarbonizing energy. http://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/clean_energy_need.html (accessed June 13, 2012).
World Nuclear News. 2012. Latest Chinese nuclear milestone. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Latest_Chinese_nuclear_milestone_1306121.html (accessed June 13, 2012).
After reading about nuclear energy I find that having nuclear power has value and should continued to be included in the U.S. energy portfolio.
Today, the U.S. currently has over hundred nuclear power reactors in several states that generate nuclear energy for electricity for homes and businesses; most of these stations are located in the Midwest and along the East Coast, with just four located on the West Coast (earthquakes?). We all read about the catastrophe at Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant back on March 11, 2011 in which the Tohoku earthquake disrupted the plant and the entire plant had to be shutoff. However, like more statisticians would say, what are the risks of that happening to the U.S. or elsewhere in the world so soon afterwards (EIA 2012)?
According to the World Nuclear News (2012) China is not afraid and is installing nuclear reactors as 27 new reactors will be online by 2015. The EIA (2012) mentions that the U.S. was the top nuclear generating country (out of 31), making nearly 800 billion KWh in 2011. This means economic profit for this country so the concept of shutting down is highly unlikely due to political input. Nuclear waste may be hazardous but not if stored and processed accurately; most of the commercial waste is (stored in water pools or dry casks not buried at the site) near the nuclear site. On the positive side of nuclear energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NCR) reported receiving applications to create 27 new reactors, which will provide over 15 gigawatts of nuclear capacity between 2010 and 2035.
The World Nuclear Association (WNA 2012) mentions that the global population is currently at over six billion people and will reach nine billion by 2050; as the population grows, energy supply must also. Fossil fuel is dirty and unsustainable, while nuclear energy is cleaner energy. As alternative and renewable energies are researched, the technology is improved, safety features are enhanced, and operating procedures are documented and regulated making nuclear energy safer to use.
References:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012. What is the status of the U.S. nuclear industry? http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/nuclear_industry.cfm (accessed June 13, 2012).
World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2012. The central challenge: decarbonizing energy. http://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/clean_energy_need.html (accessed June 13, 2012).
World Nuclear News. 2012. Latest Chinese nuclear milestone. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Latest_Chinese_nuclear_milestone_1306121.html (accessed June 13, 2012).
Nuclear Reactors
The type of nuclear reactor that is used today to generate electric power for industrial and residential consumption is based on many factors: public acceptance after a lengthy approval process by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, economics of the electric power company that invests in building the power station, the availability of cooling water for the power plants, transportation of supplies needed to furnish the power plant to keep it operational, nuclear waste repository on site, work force availability to build and to operate and maintain the nuclear plant for its life time, and many other factors too numerous to cover in their entirety.
There are several types of reactor designs currently used around the world and several new generation reactors planned for the future.
If you had a choice, given where you currently live which design would you favor to generate electric power for the industrial and residential power consumption in your locale? Why?
Nuclear power is not favored as an energy alternative in the State of Colorado and only one power plant has existed for 20 years (1970s and 80s): Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Generating Station in Platteville, Weld County, Colorado. The power plant was one of two high temperature gas cooled (HTGR) power reactor located in the United States. While the HTGR was successful, potential engineering mishaps was blamed for using a new, high-complex (instead of low-complex) steam turbine helium circulator with multiple fluid bearings.
I would use the HTGR design as above, high temperature gas cooled thorium breeder reactor, for the industrial and residential power consumption except use the appropriate equipment to fit the power plant. However, the power plant would use technology that has a proven success rate, as the plants located in the United Kingdom (UK) where they have over 20 reactors, France with eight, Italy, Japan, and Spain with only one. The HTGR would use a simple, commercial, low-complexity electric motor-based helium circulator, such as the electrical coolant circulators. This method is considered safe, affordable, highly adaptable, efficient, scalable, flexible, recyclable, and important nuclear technology due to commercial testing.
Helium is used as the primary coolant when transferring heat to a water based secondary coolant system that drives steam generators because helium is an inert gas and does not react to other chemicals or is radioactive. The HTGR is more efficient than modern light water reactors, reaching a thermal efficiency of 39-40%, which is excellent for a steam-cycle power plant. This design can satisfy the electrical power demand load, making the reactor fuel efficient. The HTGR is flexible and recyclablre as the fuel that is removed from the core can be reprocessed and fed back into the rector along with U-235. Handing of fuel, storage, and transportation is simpler with the HTGR as the fuels can be stored for six months prior to being shipped and no severe issues of fission decay during shipment. It tends to produce less radioactive waste of energy due to being high thermal efficiency and high fuel burnup, which means less plutonium is produced (FSV Folks 2012; U.S. NRC 2012; Shropshire and Herring 2004).
References:
FSV Folks. 2012. Fort. St. Vrain power station history.
http://www.fsvfolks.org/FSVHistory_2.html (accessed June 20, 2012).
Shropshire, David, and J. Stephen Herring. 2004. Fuel-cycle and nuclear material disposition issues associated with high-temperature gas reactors. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL).
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Environmental Issue of the Safety of Dams
A team of 20 Dillon Dam Road security guards,
most are off-duty law enforcement or military veterans, spend several hours a
day watching 5,000 to 7,000 cars a day pass the Dillon Dam. The Dillon Dam is
located in Dillon Colorado, along Highway 70, on the way to Utah Summit County Denver
The Dillon Dam was constructed in the 1960s, before terrorism was a factor considered in the course of infrastructure projects, the Dillon Dam was unprotected for most of its history. But the world changed afterSept. 11, 2001 and dams have become an object that needs to
make aware that something could happen to it. Since Denver Water is responsible
for the Dillon Dam and ensuring a continuous supply of water to the people of Denver
References:
The Dillon Dam was constructed in the 1960s, before terrorism was a factor considered in the course of infrastructure projects, the Dillon Dam was unprotected for most of its history. But the world changed after
References:
Hossain, F., I. Jeyachandran, and R. Pielke Sr. 2010. Dam safety effects due to human
alteration of extreme precipitation. Water Resources Research 46 W03301
(accessed March 28, 2012 ).
Nash, Caddie. 2012.
Dillon Dam guards conserve and protect Denver Water facility. Denver March 28, 2012 ).
Dispose of Computers in Douglas County, Colorado
When a computer in Douglas County
Back in May 2011 the “Electronics Recycling Act or Senate Bill 269,” a bill to prevent environmental damage by electronic waste or e-waste was approved by the senate. Senator Gail Schwartz (D–Snowmass) wanted to ensure that any computer part made of hazardous material could be recycled properly, and not only in compliance with environmental standards but also provides a list of certified e-waste recycling facilities and education regarding disposal of e-waste to the public. The Bill includes massive steps to eliminate all contamination from reaching the air, water, and land, and assist residents ofColorado
References:
Gaz, Dan. 2011. How to dispose of computers in Douglas County, Colorado (April 25). eHow. http://www.ehow.com/how_8291302_dispose-computers-douglas-county-colorado.html (accessedMarch 28, 2012 ).
Salida Citizen. 2011. Bill will prevent environmental damage caused by e-waste and createColorado March 28, 2012 ).
Back in May 2011 the “Electronics Recycling Act or Senate Bill 269,” a bill to prevent environmental damage by electronic waste or e-waste was approved by the senate. Senator Gail Schwartz (D–Snowmass) wanted to ensure that any computer part made of hazardous material could be recycled properly, and not only in compliance with environmental standards but also provides a list of certified e-waste recycling facilities and education regarding disposal of e-waste to the public. The Bill includes massive steps to eliminate all contamination from reaching the air, water, and land, and assist residents of
References:
Gaz, Dan. 2011. How to dispose of computers in Douglas County, Colorado (April 25). eHow. http://www.ehow.com/how_8291302_dispose-computers-douglas-county-colorado.html (accessed
Salida Citizen. 2011. Bill will prevent environmental damage caused by e-waste and create
Grassland Drilling in Northeast Colorado
The hunt for oil and gas beneath Pawnee National
Grassland gets attention. The Pawnee Grassland, including the iconic Pawnee
Buttes, rests above the massive Niobrara shale rock formation on
the Northern edge of Colorado Wyoming
Oil and gas companies are focusing on this area in order to tap into the grounds energy resources. Letters are being sent out by the U.S. Forest Service to landowners, environmental groups, American Indian tribes and others that may have an interest in this Grassland that energy companies will be surveying the land for any sign of deposits of oil and/or natural gas (Whaley 2012).
Local energy resources has been in such desperate need that a paved road has been already created in order for oil and gas trucks to bypass the small town ofGrover Colorado
The wells atColorado
References:
Gill,Dee . 1992. Rare bird grounds
grasslands drilling/Oil firms fume over temporary ban. Houston CDA /archives/archive.mpl/1992_1063716/rare-bird-grounds-grasslands-drilling-oil-firms-fu.html
(accessed March 27, 2012 ).
Magill, Bobby. 2011. Grasslands a target for oil. National Stripper Well Association (NSWA) (January 9). http://nswa.us/custom/shownews.php?action=detail&id=148 (March 27, 2012 ).
Whaley, Monte. 2012. Hunt for oil, gas beneath Pawnee National Grassland gets attention.Denver March 27, 2012 ).
Oil and gas companies are focusing on this area in order to tap into the grounds energy resources. Letters are being sent out by the U.S. Forest Service to landowners, environmental groups, American Indian tribes and others that may have an interest in this Grassland that energy companies will be surveying the land for any sign of deposits of oil and/or natural gas (Whaley 2012).
Local energy resources has been in such desperate need that a paved road has been already created in order for oil and gas trucks to bypass the small town of
The wells at
References:
Gill,
Magill, Bobby. 2011. Grasslands a target for oil. National Stripper Well Association (NSWA) (January 9). http://nswa.us/custom/shownews.php?action=detail&id=148 (
Whaley, Monte. 2012. Hunt for oil, gas beneath Pawnee National Grassland gets attention.
Invasive Species - Freshwater Asian marble-size quagga and zebra mussels have invaded Colorado reservoirs
Invasive Species are coming
to the United
States Colorado U.S.
Freshwater Asian marble-size quagga and zebra mussels have invadedColorado Lakewood Colorado Colorado
Freshwater Asian marble-size quagga and zebra mussels have invaded
The invasive freshwater quagga and zebra mussels are marble-size marine creatures that have mistakenly hitchhiked from central
Mussels were first discovered in the
These invasive freshwater mussels are being examined by a
References:
Benson, Amy. 2011. Zebra mussel news. United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Brown, Elizabeth. 2012. Zebra and quagga mussels. The
Finley, Bruce. 2012. Experts testing tactics to keep harmful mussels from muscling their way in.
EPA Update on Air Pollution
EPA Issues Updated, Achievable Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Natural Gas / Half of fractured wells already deploy technologies in line with final standards, which slash harmful emissions while reducing cost of compliance.
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized standards to reduce harmful air pollution associated with oil and natural gas production. The updated standards, required by the Clean Air Act, were informed by the important feedback from a range of stakeholders including the public, public health groups, states and industry. As a result, the final standards reduce implementation costs while also ensuring they are achievable and can be met by relying on proven, cost-effective technologies as well as processes already in use at approximately half of the fractured natural gas wells in the United States. These technologies will not only reduce 95 percent of the harmful emissions from these wells that contribute to smog and lead to health impacts, they will also enable companies to collect additional natural gas that can be sold. Natural gas is a key component of the nation’s clean energy future and the standards released today make sure that we can continue to expand production of this important domestic resource while reducing impacts to public health, and most importantly builds on steps already being taken by industry leaders.
Water Wars?
Fees and Anger Rise in California Water War
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Jamie Oliver Food Revolution
Jamie Oliver started the "Food Revolution" via his internet website, Twitter, and on television due to a passion of making a difference in peoples' lives by educating adults and their children in nutrition and to get people to start cooking from scratch. Oliver once asked kids at school where their produce came from; nobody could answer. He then picked up a Twinkie® and asked where it came from: food machine was a popular answer (Jamie Oliver Foundation 2012).
2008 Farm Bill's Title IV Nutrition Policy (Master Thesis)
My masters thesis on the '2008 Farm Bill'
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Offshore Wind Development Will Not Cause 'Major Environmental Damage,' Federal Review Finds
Offshore Wind Development Will Not Cause 'Major Environmental Damage,' Federal Review Finds
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Master's Thesis
My master's thesis will be about the "2012 Farm Bill".
The goal for this study is to defend the Farm Bill, in general, along with a focus specifically on updating three specific policy issues Title IV: Nutrition, Title VII: Research, and Title X: Horticulture and Organic Agriculture to create facilities for aquaculture and aquaponics and the need to increase research and encourage organic and sustainable agriculture systems due to the growing epidemic of obesity in the United States, especially in children, and to promote local sustainability food practice.
The Farm Bill contains 15 titles and is the primary piece of legislation that determines the nation's food and agriculture policy and contains a collection of federal farm and food legislation of commodity crops, horticulture and livestock, conservation, nutrition, trade and food aid, agricultural research, farm credit, rural development, energy, forestry, and other related programs that represents billions of dollars in government expenditures that set the farm, food, and rural policy goals and priorities for the United States. It was created in 1973 and is usually renewed every five years, until now. It is currently called the 2012 Farm Bill, formerly 2008 Farm Bill, because it is up for renewal this year. However, due to a special congressional deficit reduction committee which was created in August 2011 and this Bill may face budget cuts or possibly be canceled.
This Farm Bill is an opportunity to shape the health, equity, and long-term economic and environmental sustainability of the United States
Here are some weblinks that describes the Farm Bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)