Octopus Overlords

The Trump administration on Monday took another step to opening Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling for oil and gas, potentially fulfilling a decades-long dream for Republicans.

Something as simple as black paint could be the key to reducing the number of birds that are killed each year by wind turbines. According to a study conducted at a wind farm on the Norwegian archipelago of Smøla, changing the color of a single blade on a turbine from white to black resulted in a 70-percent drop in the number of bird deaths.
...
Estimates from the US Fish and Wildlife Service calculated that approximately 300,000 birds were killed by wind turbines in 2015 (which is probably two orders of magnitude fewer than die as a result of colliding with electrical power lines each year), and bird deaths from turbines are trending down as the industry moves to larger turbine blades that move more slowly.
...
At the Smøla wind farm, regular checks of four particular wind turbines—each 70m tall with three 40m-long blades—found six white-tailed eagle carcasses between 2006 and 2013. In total, the four turbines killed 18 birds that flew into the blades over those six years, along with five willow ptarmigans that are known to collide with the turbine towers rather than the blades. (Another four turbines selected as a control group were responsible for seven bird deaths, excluding willow ptarmigans, over the same timeframe.)

And so, in 2013, each of the four turbines in the test group had a single blade painted black. In the three years that followed, only six birds were found dead due to striking their turbine blades. By comparison, 18 bird deaths were recorded by the four control wind turbines—a 71.9-percent reduction in the annual fatality rate.

Digging into the data a little more showed some variation on bird deaths depending upon the season. During spring and autumn, fewer bird deaths were recorded at the painted turbines. But in summer, bird deaths actually increased at the painted turbines, and the authors note that the small number of turbines in the study and its relatively short duration both merit longer-term replication studies, both at Smøla and elsewhere.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:03 pm ars technica

Something as simple as black paint could be the key to reducing the number of birds that are killed each year by wind turbines. According to a study conducted at a wind farm on the Norwegian archipelago of Smøla, changing the color of a single blade on a turbine from white to black resulted in a 70-percent drop in the number of bird deaths.
...
Estimates from the US Fish and Wildlife Service calculated that approximately 300,000 birds were killed by wind turbines in 2015 (which is probably two orders of magnitude fewer than die as a result of colliding with electrical power lines each year), and bird deaths from turbines are trending down as the industry moves to larger turbine blades that move more slowly.
...
At the Smøla wind farm, regular checks of four particular wind turbines—each 70m tall with three 40m-long blades—found six white-tailed eagle carcasses between 2006 and 2013. In total, the four turbines killed 18 birds that flew into the blades over those six years, along with five willow ptarmigans that are known to collide with the turbine towers rather than the blades. (Another four turbines selected as a control group were responsible for seven bird deaths, excluding willow ptarmigans, over the same timeframe.)

And so, in 2013, each of the four turbines in the test group had a single blade painted black. In the three years that followed, only six birds were found dead due to striking their turbine blades. By comparison, 18 bird deaths were recorded by the four control wind turbines—a 71.9-percent reduction in the annual fatality rate.

Digging into the data a little more showed some variation on bird deaths depending upon the season. During spring and autumn, fewer bird deaths were recorded at the painted turbines. But in summer, bird deaths actually increased at the painted turbines, and the authors note that the small number of turbines in the study and its relatively short duration both merit longer-term replication studies, both at Smøla and elsewhere.

The world’s first shipment of blue ammonia is on its way from Saudi Arabia to Japan, where it will be used in power stations to produce electricity without carbon emissions.

Saudi Aramco, which made the announcement Sunday, produced the fuel, which it does by converting hydrocarbons into hydrogen and then ammonia, and capturing the carbon dioxide byproduct. Japan will receive 40 tons of blue ammonia in the first shipment, Aramco said.

“The U.S., as a global economic leader moving toward renewable energy, sets a vitally important example for the rest of the world,” he told The Nation’s Health. “And our exit from the agreement and adopting anti-science policies sets an equally awful example for other countries to do the same.”

Rising global temperatures are already contributing to extreme weather, such as worsening hurricanes and droughts. People in low-income and minority communities are being disproportionately harmed by those effects.

“It’s important that we recognize the synergism that worsening climate change has on health, especially recognizing the disproportionate impact on Black and brown communities,” he said.

In practice, the U.S. government has been ignoring the obligations of the Paris agreement since the 2017 withdrawal announcement. But the formal Nov. 4 exit still matters, Miller said.

Little Raven wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:30 pm Bad news - China weathered COVID remarkably well, so the research team involved in this study actually estimates that China has increased it's year over year emissions, though they're not yet sure by how much.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:19 pm A political obituary for Donald Trump.

I don't agree that obituary is the right word, as he's not disappearing anytime soon. But the overall piece I found solid.

The most mendacious of Trump’s predecessors would have been careful to limit these thoughts to private recording systems. Trump spoke them openly, not because he couldn’t control his impulses, but intentionally, even systematically, in order to demolish the norms that would otherwise have constrained his power.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:23 pm We just need to feed them more seaweed:

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:55 pm Seaweed

Professor of aquaculture at James Cook University in Townsville, Rocky De Nys, has been working with the CSIRO studying the effects seaweed can have on cow's methane production.

A company commercialising a CSIRO-developed, seaweed feed product, which slashes the amount of greenhouse gases cattle burp and fart into the atmosphere, has won a $1 million international prize for its work reshaping the food system.
...
"We think we can tackle the dairy and the feedlot part of that pretty simply, which may be 5 megatons in Australia and globally 500 megatons of emissions," Dr Battaglia said.

"That's equivalent to taking 100 million cars off the road.

"But in the long run, if we can start to think about ways to deliver this into grass-fed sectors, the impact is 10 to 100 times more than that."

Trump today is finalizing a surprise rule that bars the EPA from regulating oil and gas and refineries, deeming them "necessarily insignificant" sources of greenhouse gas pollution. The idea Trump is finalizing these short-lived rules only to “to clog up the works and slow the Biden administration down" is sounding more likely every day

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:57 am At this point, if he doesn't push out an executive order banning electric vehicles and requiring everyone to keep their thermostat set to 76 in the winter and 62 in the summer, I'll consider it a win.

Conservative delegates at the party's policy convention have voted to reject adding green-friendly statements to the policy book — including a line that would have stated the party believes "climate change is real" and is "willing to act."

The Portneuf—Jacques—Cartier riding in Quebec, which proposed the policy change, also asked delegates to recognize that "Canadian businesses classified as highly polluting need to take more responsibility" and "reduce their GHG emissions."

The policy proposal also included a call to support "innovation in green technologies" so that Canada can become "a world-class leader" in an emerging industry.

Delegates issued a rebuke to climate-minded Conservatives and rejected the policy shift by a margin of 54 per cent to 46. In fact, it was one of only four policy proposals or modifications on a list of 50 pitched by electoral riding associations (EDAs) that were voted down by the delegates.

While delegates from each of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec embraced the "climate change is real" proposal — 70 per cent of delegates from New Brunswick and Quebec were onside with it — those from every other province and the territories voted against the change.

In B.C., the "no" side had just a two-point edge, while the vote was much more lopsided in Saskatchewan (73 per cent against), the territories (69 per cent opposed), Alberta (62 per cent opposed) and Ontario (58 per cent opposed).

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:02 pm Even if that's true (and honestly, I can't really tell what he's getting at), this man believes that the National Forestry Service or the Bureau of Land Management could in any way comment or guide policy on the rotation of the Earth or Moon? This man sits on the Natural Resources Committee??? He's an elected official with the power to vote on national policy????

Like, if his whole position is "well, things are rotating out in space so tell me how we fix that" then I give up.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:02 pm Even if that's true (and honestly, I can't really tell what he's getting at), this man believes that the National Forestry Service or the Bureau of Land Management could in any way comment or guide policy on the rotation of the Earth or Moon? This man sits on the Natural Resources Committee??? He's an elected official with the power to vote on national policy????

Like, if his whole position is "well, things are rotating out in space so tell me how we fix that" then I give up.

stessier wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:20 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:02 pm Even if that's true (and honestly, I can't really tell what he's getting at), this man believes that the National Forestry Service or the Bureau of Land Management could in any way comment or guide policy on the rotation of the Earth or Moon? This man sits on the Natural Resources Committee??? He's an elected official with the power to vote on national policy????

Like, if his whole position is "well, things are rotating out in space so tell me how we fix that" then I give up.

The comments (yes, I read them) suggest it was part of a larger conversation around regulating oil to improve global warming. He came back with the fact that the moon and sun are contributors and asked if there was a way to fix that (suggesting they were the biggest issue). He was being snarky. Still incredibly stupid, but for a different reason.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:25 pm Ah, so this was really about how much he dislikes that everyone hates Ted Cruz so much - he wants to get in on being a widely hated politician as well? I'm not just dumb, I can also say sarcastic, useless things?

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:40 pm supposed to hit 105F in Seattle this weekend, which would be an all-time record breaking high

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:40 pm supposed to hit 105F in Seattle this weekend, which would be an all-time record breaking high

Exxon Mobil Corp.’s Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods says the company is “deeply apologetic” over comments caught on camera in a secret filming by Greenpeace that show one of the oil giant’s lobbyists saying a carbon tax the company has promoted for years is unlikely to happen.

Unearthed, Greenpeace U.K.’s news division, had an investigator pose as a headhunter when speaking with lobbyist Keith McCoy last month. Other researchers were involved in the work, which also included an interview with a former Exxon lobbyist.

“Comments made by the individuals in no way represent the company’s position on a variety of issues, including climate policy and our firm commitment that carbon pricing is important to addressing climate change,” Woods said in a statement Wednesday after the Greenpeace footage was aired by the U.K.’s Channel 4 News.

...

In the Greenpeace footage, McCoy also appeared to suggest that Exxon joined “shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts” on climate change. “There’s nothing illegal about that,” he said, while also describing how the oil giant is pushing to dilute climate provisions in President Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Bill, Channel 4 reported.

“We condemn the statements and are deeply apologetic for them, including comments regarding interactions with elected officials,” Woods said.

“They are entirely inconsistent with the way we expect our people to conduct themselves. We were shocked by these interviews and stand by our commitments to working on finding solutions to climate change.”