The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to groundwater contamination, according to a study by the Energy Institute of the University of Texas at Austin. The study, released at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, British Columbia, found that many problems ascribed to fracking actually have other causes, such as "casing failures or poor cement jobs."University researchers also determined that many reports of contamination are the result of above-ground spills or other mishandling of wastewater from shale-gas drilling, rather than the fracking process. "Our goal was to provide policymakers a foundation for developing sensible regulations that ensure responsible shale-gas development," said Charles "Chip" Groat, an Energy Institute associate director who led the study. "What we've tried to do is separate fact from fiction."
Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to groundwater contamination, according to a study by the Energy Institute of the University of Texas at Austin.
The study, released at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, British Columbia, found that many problems ascribed to fracking actually have other causes, such as "casing failures or poor cement jobs."
University researchers also determined that many reports of contamination are the result of above-ground spills or other mishandling of wastewater from shale-gas drilling, rather than the fracking process.
"Our goal was to provide policymakers a foundation for developing sensible regulations that ensure responsible shale-gas development," said Charles "Chip" Groat, an Energy Institute associate director who led the study. "What we've tried to do is separate fact from fiction."
So, no to shale gas=no to any petroulem drilling. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- U.S. Forest Service researchers have confirmed what has long been suspected about a valuable tree in Alaska's Panhandle: climate warming is killing off yellow cedar. The mighty trees can live more than 1,000 years, resisting bugs and rot and even defending themselves against injury, but their shallow roots are vulnerable to freezing if soil is not insulated by snow. And for more than a century, with less snow on the ground, frozen roots have killed yellow cedar on nearly a half-million acres in southeast Alaska, plus another 123,000 acres in adjacent British Columbia. The detective work on the tree deaths will help forest managers decide where yellow cedar is likely to thrive in the future. But the yellow cedar experience also underscores the increasing importance that climate change will play in managing forests, said Paul Schaberg, a USFS plant pathologist from Burlington, Vt., one of five authors of a paper on the tree that appeared this month in the journal Bioscience. "As time goes on and climates change even more, other species, other locations, are likely to experience similar kinds of progressions, so you might do well to understand this one so you can address those future things," Schaberg said.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- U.S. Forest Service researchers have confirmed what has long been suspected about a valuable tree in Alaska's Panhandle: climate warming is killing off yellow cedar.
The mighty trees can live more than 1,000 years, resisting bugs and rot and even defending themselves against injury, but their shallow roots are vulnerable to freezing if soil is not insulated by snow. And for more than a century, with less snow on the ground, frozen roots have killed yellow cedar on nearly a half-million acres in southeast Alaska, plus another 123,000 acres in adjacent British Columbia.
The detective work on the tree deaths will help forest managers decide where yellow cedar is likely to thrive in the future. But the yellow cedar experience also underscores the increasing importance that climate change will play in managing forests, said Paul Schaberg, a USFS plant pathologist from Burlington, Vt., one of five authors of a paper on the tree that appeared this month in the journal Bioscience.
"As time goes on and climates change even more, other species, other locations, are likely to experience similar kinds of progressions, so you might do well to understand this one so you can address those future things," Schaberg said.
The best part is when the lights in the tents go on, one by one, says Elad Orian. Electricity here, in the hills south of Hebron, was long unreliable. Either it was not available or it was too expensive, produced for just a few hours each day by a noisy, diesel-guzzling generator. That changed when Elad Orian and Noam Dotan, two Israeli physicians who had tired of conflict, came along three years ago and installed solar panels and erected wind turbines. Since then, such facilities have been installed in 16 communities, providing 1,500 Palestinians with electricity. OAS_RICH('Middle2'); The women here no longer have to make their butter by hand; they can refrigerate the sheep's cheese, which is their livelihood; and their children can do their homework at night. Now they can sit together and watch TV -- and connect to a world that seems far removed from their lives on the edge of the Judaean Desert. It is but a small revolution, achieved at little cost. But it is a good example of successful development aid. The success, though, could soon be a thing of the past. Israel has threatened to tear them down with five municipalities in recent weeks having received "stop work" orders -- the first step on the road to demolition. The problem is that the facilities are in the so-called Area C, which covers 60 percent of the West Bank and is administered by Israel. Permission from the Israelis is a requirement before construction projects can move ahead -- and permits are almost never given to
The best part is when the lights in the tents go on, one by one, says Elad Orian. Electricity here, in the hills south of Hebron, was long unreliable. Either it was not available or it was too expensive, produced for just a few hours each day by a noisy, diesel-guzzling generator. That changed when Elad Orian and Noam Dotan, two Israeli physicians who had tired of conflict, came along three years ago and installed solar panels and erected wind turbines. Since then, such facilities have been installed in 16 communities, providing 1,500 Palestinians with electricity.
OAS_RICH('Middle2'); The women here no longer have to make their butter by hand; they can refrigerate the sheep's cheese, which is their livelihood; and their children can do their homework at night. Now they can sit together and watch TV -- and connect to a world that seems far removed from their lives on the edge of the Judaean Desert. It is but a small revolution, achieved at little cost. But it is a good example of successful development aid.
The success, though, could soon be a thing of the past. Israel has threatened to tear them down with five municipalities in recent weeks having received "stop work" orders -- the first step on the road to demolition. The problem is that the facilities are in the so-called Area C, which covers 60 percent of the West Bank and is administered by Israel. Permission from the Israelis is a requirement before construction projects can move ahead -- and permits are almost never given to
The world's first test tube hamburger will be served up this October after scientists perfected the art of growing beef in the lab. By generating strips of meat from stem cells researchers believe they can create a product that is identical to a real burger. The process of culturing the artificial meat in the lab is so laborious that the finished product, expected to arrive in eight months' time, will cost about £220,000 (EUR250,000). But researchers expect that after producing their first patty they will be able to scale up the process to create affordable artificial meat products.
By generating strips of meat from stem cells researchers believe they can create a product that is identical to a real burger.
The process of culturing the artificial meat in the lab is so laborious that the finished product, expected to arrive in eight months' time, will cost about £220,000 (EUR250,000).
But researchers expect that after producing their first patty they will be able to scale up the process to create affordable artificial meat products.
This is not yukky, it's awesome. If they can get it down to a cost where it becomes sorta competitive with commercial beef, we can have beef sans the deforestation and methane from cow farts.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
In this respect, the brave new world arrived fifty years ago.
There is also the question of what the new industry would mean in environmental terms, once ramped up to mass production levels.
How interesting:
Biologists have long researched methods for growing muscle tissue in laboratory conditions. PETA has offered a $1 million prize to the first company that can bring lab-grown chicken meat to consumers by 2012.
As to the chicken prize, $1mn is laughably small compared to the $$$ the food industry would make out of such a product. I notice, anyway, that there's no winner.
If you associate "burgers" with McDonald's, I can see where your reaction would come from. Me, I usually class McDonald's as an expensive brand of dog food rather than a cheap brand of burger.
But whatever. I don't think anything scalable will come from test-tube burger paste, and, if it did, it would probably be "an expensive brand of dog food".
Or does the search for "beef" and "chicken" one-cell organisms stem from the though is that if the cell springs from a cow or chicken before extensive modifications it will be more acceptable to non-vegetarians then the curent products? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Although evidently not all parts of the cow or chicken look, feel or taste the same. And
Large scale production of in vitro meat may require artificial growth hormones to be added to the culture for meat production. No procedure has been presented to produce large scale in vitro meat without the use of antibiotics to prevent bacterial infections.
Seriously, this would be a truly incredibly technology.
Not to mention unnecessary suffering associated with factory farming.
I'd say the jury is still out on whether it'll be a nice development or indeed something repulsive, but I wouldn't slam it a priori. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
But the practical answer seems to me to replace meat protein by vegetable protein - eat less meat.
But while your practical answer is nutritionally the right one (and one I do follow, although not nearly as much as I should), it is a rather big gastronomical sacrifice. So if they managed to make it just as good (a colossal if, I know) it would be great.
Especially if they actually managed to make it require less antibiotics rather than more. I'm not saying it will work. Only that I would not consider it an abomination to eat it if it did. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
an abomination
No, certainly not. There are far worse things on sale right now.
at a congress of her National Front party in Lille, Le Pen returned to familiar anti-immigration territory, saying she had proof that all meat in Paris was halal - killed by cutting the animal's throat and letting its blood drain out."This situation is deception and the government has been fully aware of it for months," Le Pen said. "All the abattoirs of the Paris region have succumbed to the rules of a minority. We have reason to be disgusted."
at a congress of her National Front party in Lille, Le Pen returned to familiar anti-immigration territory, saying she had proof that all meat in Paris was halal - killed by cutting the animal's throat and letting its blood drain out.
"This situation is deception and the government has been fully aware of it for months," Le Pen said. "All the abattoirs of the Paris region have succumbed to the rules of a minority. We have reason to be disgusted."
News for Parisian Jews - their kosher meat is in fact halal.
(Le Pen was talking rubbish of course - except that the small abbattoirs in the Ile-de-France region are halal. They just don't provide anything like all the meat that is supplied to the region from other regions of France and Europe and elsewhere).
The small abattoirs are all halal, only partly to serve the actual halal market, but mostly, it seems, because it's cheaper, i.e. they are using the religious alibi because it enables them to take short cuts. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
So now eating lab meat, assuming all the chemicals and antibiotics are washed out before serving, is just another step in the development of our civilization?
Let's forget about pointless measures like the difference in taste between a chemically-fed, hydroponically grown tomato and one of the heritage varieties. Have we then thrown out any concept of life force? Of higher order?
Is lab meat another data point that this civilization has no clue about the vast net of connection in which we swim?
(PS. I do not argue against research, though it might be more fruitful if research was carried out by people who at least acknowledge the mystery and its web of manifestation.) "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
First world civilisation consumes way more meat than can be sustainably harvested given contemporary technology. There are three basic ways to solve that problem:
A Canadian government spokeswoman told the Guardian: "We oppose an FQD that discriminates against oil sands crude without strong scientific basis. The oil sands are a proven strategic resource for Canada; we will continue to promote Canada's oil sands as they are key to Canada's economic prosperity and energy security."The European Commission disputes the charge that its plans are not based on science. Connie Hedegaard, the EU environment commissioner told the Guardian: "The Commission identified the most carbon-intensive sources in its science-based proposal. This way high-emission fossil fuels will be labelled and given the proper value. It is only reasonable to give high values to more polluting products than to less polluting products. I of course hope the member states will follow the Commission [and vote for] this environmentally sound initiative."Colin Baines, toxic fuels campaign manager at the Co-operative, said: "There is a wealth of independent science stating that tar sands fuels emit significantly more carbon than conventional oil, no matter how many briefings Canada gives claiming otherwise." The EU proposal is to label tar sands oil as causing 22% more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil on average. The increase results from the energy needed to blast the bitumen from the bedrock and refine it.Baines added: "The Canadian government's aggressive lobbying and attempted intimidation of the EU is making it look increasingly desperate. But its threat of a WTO challenge faces one massive problem: tar sands oil is not a 'like product' with crude oil so no unlawful discrimination exists under WTO. The EU must adhere to the science and penalise the higher emissions."Many European oil companies have major interests in the Canadian tar sands. In January, the Guardian revealed a secret compromise plan that would weaken the impact on tar sands oil, this time from the Netherlands, home of Shell. BP, headquartered in the UK, had already in their own words "bent the ear" of the UK's energy minister. Total in France and ENI in Italy also have tar sands interests and those nations are believed to be opposed to the EU plan.If the FQD proposal fails to win the required majority in the vote on Thursday it faces an arduous fight for survival through the European council and parliament.
A Canadian government spokeswoman told the Guardian: "We oppose an FQD that discriminates against oil sands crude without strong scientific basis. The oil sands are a proven strategic resource for Canada; we will continue to promote Canada's oil sands as they are key to Canada's economic prosperity and energy security."
The European Commission disputes the charge that its plans are not based on science. Connie Hedegaard, the EU environment commissioner told the Guardian: "The Commission identified the most carbon-intensive sources in its science-based proposal. This way high-emission fossil fuels will be labelled and given the proper value. It is only reasonable to give high values to more polluting products than to less polluting products. I of course hope the member states will follow the Commission [and vote for] this environmentally sound initiative."
Colin Baines, toxic fuels campaign manager at the Co-operative, said: "There is a wealth of independent science stating that tar sands fuels emit significantly more carbon than conventional oil, no matter how many briefings Canada gives claiming otherwise." The EU proposal is to label tar sands oil as causing 22% more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil on average. The increase results from the energy needed to blast the bitumen from the bedrock and refine it.
Baines added: "The Canadian government's aggressive lobbying and attempted intimidation of the EU is making it look increasingly desperate. But its threat of a WTO challenge faces one massive problem: tar sands oil is not a 'like product' with crude oil so no unlawful discrimination exists under WTO. The EU must adhere to the science and penalise the higher emissions."
Many European oil companies have major interests in the Canadian tar sands. In January, the Guardian revealed a secret compromise plan that would weaken the impact on tar sands oil, this time from the Netherlands, home of Shell. BP, headquartered in the UK, had already in their own words "bent the ear" of the UK's energy minister. Total in France and ENI in Italy also have tar sands interests and those nations are believed to be opposed to the EU plan.
If the FQD proposal fails to win the required majority in the vote on Thursday it faces an arduous fight for survival through the European council and parliament.
by DoDo - May 20 28 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2028 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments