Linda Lloyd, project manager at Mariposa ecoVillage on the west edge of Amarillo, was happy to be in the cold wind today. Predictions of snow had her worried, but the weather stayed dry so it was time to get busy.
Workers were pouring concrete from a mast high above what will become her house in the development meant to show off sustainable living. For example, her abode will be totally powered by solar panels and will have no water well.
"I won't be paying Xcel (Energy) anything," she said.
The water will come from harvesting rain.
The home is dug into a 12-foot cliff facing south to collect the warmth of the sun during winter months. The walls will have six inches of concrete lined on both sides with two and a half inches of foam.
The living area is about 800 square feet, topped with 300 square feet of office/studio space.
This is the first home at Mariposa. The hospitality center is up, made of compressed dirt blocks. And work to plaster it and complete the pressed earth floors will begin soon.
"I'm on specialist at that," Lloyd said.
Another first happened within the past few days as Mariposa started taking reservations for single-family home lots. There are 17 on offer. They measure about one acre and go for from $20,000 to $25,000.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
"You're so fat"
"Your shoes don't fit on your feet"
I must be such a geek. Data brings on music.
Those lyrics, from Robert Palmer's "Trouble" (notably also done by Lowell George), got in my head while looking at some fascinating data from the USDA.
The Economic Research Service maintains historical numbers of available food per capita in the U.S. Some of the stats go back to 1909. How do they do that?
Sure, the Palmer lyrics have to do with a depressed person, "Your car wouldn't start so started to eat your heart out," who has nothing but bad luck. But what I saw today on the Web said fresh and processed vegetable consumption stayed about the same at 336 pounds in 1970 compared to 392 pounds in 2008, but natural cheese went from 11 pounds per person in 1970 to 32 pounds in 2008. That's a lot of cheese burgers, smothered burritos or something.
Anyway, even with a grain, or shake, of salt, it's pretty interesting to see so here's some more.
Not a big surprise bottled water went from 1.6 gallons in 1976 to 28 gallons in 2008. But look at meat consumption per person on a boneless basis. Beef was at 51 pounds in 1909 and 61 pounds in 2008. Then here comes chicken from 10 pounds to 59 pounds.
An interesting side note is the measure of the total meat consumption of beef, pork and chicken started at 102 in 1909 to end at 166 in 2008. But in the 30's during the Depression, consumption dipped for several years, getting as low as 75 pounds in 1935.
But most importantly? Mushrooms (not the fun ones). We ate about two pounds per person in 1969 but seven pounds in 2008.
What's up with that?
I must be such a geek. Data brings on music.
Those lyrics, from Robert Palmer's "Trouble" (notably also done by Lowell George), got in my head while looking at some fascinating data from the USDA.
The Economic Research Service maintains historical numbers of available food per capita in the U.S. Some of the stats go back to 1909. How do they do that?
Sure, the Palmer lyrics have to do with a depressed person, "Your car wouldn't start so started to eat your heart out," who has nothing but bad luck. But what I saw today on the Web said fresh and processed vegetable consumption stayed about the same at 336 pounds in 1970 compared to 392 pounds in 2008, but natural cheese went from 11 pounds per person in 1970 to 32 pounds in 2008. That's a lot of cheese burgers, smothered burritos or something.
Anyway, even with a grain, or shake, of salt, it's pretty interesting to see so here's some more.
Not a big surprise bottled water went from 1.6 gallons in 1976 to 28 gallons in 2008. But look at meat consumption per person on a boneless basis. Beef was at 51 pounds in 1909 and 61 pounds in 2008. Then here comes chicken from 10 pounds to 59 pounds.
An interesting side note is the measure of the total meat consumption of beef, pork and chicken started at 102 in 1909 to end at 166 in 2008. But in the 30's during the Depression, consumption dipped for several years, getting as low as 75 pounds in 1935.
But most importantly? Mushrooms (not the fun ones). We ate about two pounds per person in 1969 but seven pounds in 2008.
What's up with that?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
I love the smell of napalm in the morning
What a classic movie line, especially coming from a wild-eyed Robert Duvall.
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning... Smells like, victory."
It got him that beach in Vietnam to surf in "Apocalypse Now" and might be what people downstate need for their pesky fire ants instead of club soda.
Texas AgriLife Extension bug specialists recently had to readdress the Internet rumor about using club soda to kill fire ants. They politely called it “erroneous pest control advice.” But how can something environmentally friendly be bad.
Erroneous advice indeed.
That’s an understatement of Biblical proportions. I used to have to deal with those devilish ants in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. They killed just-born calves and fawns, they made grown men jump into swimming pools hollering like little girls.
Just pour two cups of club soda on a fire ant mound and no more problem, according to the "advice." All that would do is make the little red monsters mad.
“According to the message, the carbon dioxide in the soda is supposed to displace the oxygen and suffocate the ants, including the queen, killing the entire colony within about 48 hours,” an AgriLife news release said. “It also notes that club soda leaves no toxic residue, does not contaminate ground water and will not 'indiscriminently' kill other insects or harm pets.”
“Impressive bubbling action” from the club soda is about all you’ll get - if you're lucky.
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning... Smells like, victory."
It got him that beach in Vietnam to surf in "Apocalypse Now" and might be what people downstate need for their pesky fire ants instead of club soda.
Texas AgriLife Extension bug specialists recently had to readdress the Internet rumor about using club soda to kill fire ants. They politely called it “erroneous pest control advice.” But how can something environmentally friendly be bad.
Erroneous advice indeed.
That’s an understatement of Biblical proportions. I used to have to deal with those devilish ants in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. They killed just-born calves and fawns, they made grown men jump into swimming pools hollering like little girls.
Just pour two cups of club soda on a fire ant mound and no more problem, according to the "advice." All that would do is make the little red monsters mad.
“According to the message, the carbon dioxide in the soda is supposed to displace the oxygen and suffocate the ants, including the queen, killing the entire colony within about 48 hours,” an AgriLife news release said. “It also notes that club soda leaves no toxic residue, does not contaminate ground water and will not 'indiscriminently' kill other insects or harm pets.”
“Impressive bubbling action” from the club soda is about all you’ll get - if you're lucky.
Doesn't something that can do this deserve a little napalm?
Monday, February 22, 2010
A giant sucking sound
Apologies to Ross Perot, but his phrase may be a perfect match for the kiri tree.
The kiri grows up to 30 feet its first year, according to several sources beyond the company promoting it. What helps make that happen are massive leaves (some say up to three feet across). And here's the eco thing - those leaves let it suck in more carbon dioxide than any tree should be allowed to.
A Sacramento, Calif., based company, Eco2 Forests, is promoting the tree as an earth saver. Collie Christensen is the head of the company, after having been involved early on with Cellular One, a barter trading market and a variety of land development deals, so maybe he's good at the Pied Piper thing.
Here's what the tree looks like when just planted before it turns into a carbon-killing machine.
The "Global Forestry Plan" of Eco2 Forests is to plant 3.3 million trees in Malakula, Vanuatu, in the South Pacific. That could earn the company $120 million in carbon credits, according to its own figures.
See, I think Christensen must just like fun words. Malakula and Vanuatu? And how's this, the companies research and development takes place in Jimboomba, Queensland. And the tree is also more properly called the paulownia or the sapphire princess tree. Then there's the "ecoimagineer" job title amongst the CEO and CFO titles of Eco2.
But who knows, it might just be crazy enough to work - for somebody's pocket book anyway. I don't know about the carbon. The wood, ready for harvest in seven years, is highly rated and goes for more than oak plus the carbon credits help.
The company touts the tree as sustainable because it can grow back from the stump, once harvested, about 10 times. Of course it sucks a lot of water too, but that's a different argument as is the fact the National Park Service lumps the kiri in with "alien plant invaders" because it spreads like a bad e-mail joke.
And the company has a good pr team because it's all over any Google search of a related term
Relax, somebody has to make some green out of green.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
We don't need no stinkin' green badges
Big businesses appear to be having second thoughts about whether green is their color, and the state of Texas is going to court against the EPA butting into our state business.
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, just had a pr firm send out an e-mailed comment from him about BP America, Conoco Phillips and Caterpillar dropping out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.
I don't know that he's right, but at least the Twitter world is abuzz with the "news."
Anyway, Myron's take is this on the big businesses.
They “are recognizing that cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the U. S. Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly. We hope that other major corporations will soon see the light and drop their support for cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing legislation,” Ebell said.
Not being tied into an industry mouthpiece group like Ebell, I can’t swear by all that, but the hits keep coming.
According to another industry group, the CLEAR Act that advocates a cap and dividend program in which greenhouse gasses are controlled but there’s no trading of carbon credits in a marketplace that could involve speculation by those Wall Street types is generating a huge buzz of lobbying in Washington.
Really? I wouldn’t have dreamed.
And then there’s the EPA opposition by the state of Texas. The good governor, attorney general and ag commissioner announced today they will lay siege on the U.S. Court of Appeals to challenge the EPA finding that greenhouse gasses are a danger, and we need federal regulations to curb them.
Of course, Texas’ argument is the same as the industry groups’ – money matters more. (Let the kids fend for themselves. We’ve got an empire to defend.)
Rick Perry, according to a news release, said this: “The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ. This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas’ freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach.”
Besides, Perry doesn't look good in green. He's more of a red-white-and-blue man.
But to be fair, the Texans at least offer a compromise to “just say no.” They want to continue developing alternative energy production with tax credits to multi-national companies.
Seems this could be another momentum switch as the carbon-laden winds blow another direction. Doesn’t mean we will see a resolution, just a shift in who thinks they’re winning the hearts and minds.
There’s billions of dollars involved, so the dancers should continue to swirl and twirl.
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, just had a pr firm send out an e-mailed comment from him about BP America, Conoco Phillips and Caterpillar dropping out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.
I don't know that he's right, but at least the Twitter world is abuzz with the "news."
Anyway, Myron's take is this on the big businesses.
They “are recognizing that cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the U. S. Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly. We hope that other major corporations will soon see the light and drop their support for cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing legislation,” Ebell said.
Not being tied into an industry mouthpiece group like Ebell, I can’t swear by all that, but the hits keep coming.
According to another industry group, the CLEAR Act that advocates a cap and dividend program in which greenhouse gasses are controlled but there’s no trading of carbon credits in a marketplace that could involve speculation by those Wall Street types is generating a huge buzz of lobbying in Washington.
Really? I wouldn’t have dreamed.
And then there’s the EPA opposition by the state of Texas. The good governor, attorney general and ag commissioner announced today they will lay siege on the U.S. Court of Appeals to challenge the EPA finding that greenhouse gasses are a danger, and we need federal regulations to curb them.
Of course, Texas’ argument is the same as the industry groups’ – money matters more. (Let the kids fend for themselves. We’ve got an empire to defend.)
Rick Perry, according to a news release, said this: “The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ. This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas’ freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach.”
Besides, Perry doesn't look good in green. He's more of a red-white-and-blue man.
But to be fair, the Texans at least offer a compromise to “just say no.” They want to continue developing alternative energy production with tax credits to multi-national companies.
Seems this could be another momentum switch as the carbon-laden winds blow another direction. Doesn’t mean we will see a resolution, just a shift in who thinks they’re winning the hearts and minds.
There’s billions of dollars involved, so the dancers should continue to swirl and twirl.
Monday, February 15, 2010
I know, I know
Been a while, but this really is cool and not nearly as alarming as the polar bears falling from the sky I showed you the last time I returned.
It's called the W+W or wash basin + water closet. Very European, don't you think?
The Rocha company of Spain is marketing this contraption, albeit with sleek lines.
"A meeting of ways between sophistication and love for the planet," according to the company's rather spare, or maybe sophisticated, Web site. The images are nice but the video, well, you decide.
It filters the water you run in the sink then fills the cistern of the toilet, oops, I meant water closet. Allegedly it saves 25 percent of the water normally used.
But I must say the idea of a toilet facing a big ol' wall of glass overlooking a balcony open to the city is a little disconcerting or maybe it's European.
Friday, January 29, 2010
How will carbon screw up your life?
Don't worry, the feds are on the case.
Yeah, it kind of makes sense investors would like to know if too much methane is going to break them, but now federal regulators will be watching to make sure they know.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission gave publicly traded companies “interpretive guidance” on Wednesday, telling the businesses they will have to disclose to investors how climate change might affect their bottom line. I don't know how much pain and suffering comes if you're a violator, but it sounds bad.
But investors don’t have enough to worry about, oh, like losing all their money because of greedy, arrogant risk takers or borderline criminals. Now they need the enforcers to look out for cow farts raising ocean levels and flooding the condo they invested in or whether the coal-fired utility they have shares in will get big-time fines for pumping out too much carbon.
The guidance is the first economy-wide climate risk disclosure requirement in the world, according to a group of environmentalists like green-minded investors at Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund.
“The lack of specific guidance until now has resulted in weak and inconsistent climate-related disclosure by public companies” they said in a news release.
“Today’s vote is a clarion call about the vast risks and opportunities climate change poses for US companies and the urgency for integrating them into investment decision making,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a network of 80 institutional investors with $8 trillion in collective assets. “The business risks of climate change cannot be ignored. With this guidance investors can make more sound decisions based on better information – and businesses will have a level-playing field with clear standards and expectations for disclosure.”
Feel better?
Yeah, it kind of makes sense investors would like to know if too much methane is going to break them, but now federal regulators will be watching to make sure they know.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission gave publicly traded companies “interpretive guidance” on Wednesday, telling the businesses they will have to disclose to investors how climate change might affect their bottom line. I don't know how much pain and suffering comes if you're a violator, but it sounds bad.
But investors don’t have enough to worry about, oh, like losing all their money because of greedy, arrogant risk takers or borderline criminals. Now they need the enforcers to look out for cow farts raising ocean levels and flooding the condo they invested in or whether the coal-fired utility they have shares in will get big-time fines for pumping out too much carbon.
The guidance is the first economy-wide climate risk disclosure requirement in the world, according to a group of environmentalists like green-minded investors at Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund.
“The lack of specific guidance until now has resulted in weak and inconsistent climate-related disclosure by public companies” they said in a news release.
“Today’s vote is a clarion call about the vast risks and opportunities climate change poses for US companies and the urgency for integrating them into investment decision making,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a network of 80 institutional investors with $8 trillion in collective assets. “The business risks of climate change cannot be ignored. With this guidance investors can make more sound decisions based on better information – and businesses will have a level-playing field with clear standards and expectations for disclosure.”
Feel better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
